As long as right argues that guns are needed as weapons, they will continue to awaken the gun control crowd. Weapons are dangerous no matter whose hands they are in. When the gun owners were simply a group of sportspeople and collectors, they weren't as dangerous. The right-wing is the worst enemy of gun owners in that way.

As long as right argues that guns are needed as weapons, they will continue to awaken the gun control crowd. Weapons are dangerous no matter whose hands they are in. When the gun owners were simply a group of sportspeople and collectors, they weren't as dangerous. The right-wing is the worst enemy of gun owners in that way.

I have a good understanding. It was created to preserve the militias in the southern states so that they could reign in the slaves. I think as white men lose their special privileges to women, minorities, gays, and others, they cling to this last area of power (and let's face it this is primarily a conservative white male issue) with desperation. I don't think they want a return to slavery, but the fight for extreme gun rights is a hysterical emotional response to their loss of superior rights. (At any rate, personally I do not support guns as weapons.)

To quote Patrick Henry:

"If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress . . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia."

I have a good understanding. It was created to preserve the militias in the southern states so that they could reign in the slaves. I think as white men lose their special privileges to women, minorities, gays, and others, they cling to this last area of power (and let's face it this is primarily a conservative white male issue) with desperation. I don't think they want a return to slavery, but the fight for extreme gun rights is a hysterical emotional response to their loss of superior rights. (At any rate, personally I do not support guns as weapons.)

To quote Patrick Henry:

"If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress . . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia."

As long as right argues that guns are needed as weapons, they will continue to awaken the gun control crowd. Weapons are dangerous no matter whose hands they are in. When the gun owners were simply a group of sportspeople and collectors, they weren't as dangerous. The right-wing is the worst enemy of gun owners in that way.

Well, Patrick Henry certainly had a good understanding of it. That's why I quoted him. As far as Thomas Jefferson's belief in revolution (in fact, for many years the communist bookstore in NYC was named after him) against a tyrannical government, frankly we don't have one and have not had one. When one arises, I have no doubt it will be with the backing of the NRA. Putting weapons into the hands of conservatives, who tend to favor reduced voting rights, reduced women's rights, and so on is devolution, not revolution.

It's weird how I feel myself being pushed to the right on this issue. I don't own a gun and have never considered myself "pro-gun," but the anti-gun hysteria and knee-jerk responses to Sandy Hook (including New York legislation) are an emotion-driven phenomenon that badly misses the point of what causes gun violence. Then again, I tend to find myself at odds with whatever is "popular," "exciting" and "fashionable."

It's weird how I feel myself being pushed to the right on this issue. I don't own a gun and have never considered myself "pro-gun," but the anti-gun hysteria and knee-jerk responses to Sandy Hook (including New York legislation) are an emotion-driven phenomenon that badly misses the point of what causes gun violence. Then again, I tend to find myself at odds with whatever is "popular," "exciting" and "fashionable."

It's weird how I feel myself being pushed to the right on this issue. I don't own a gun and have never considered myself "pro-gun," but the anti-gun hysteria and knee-jerk responses to Sandy Hook (including New York legislation) are an emotion-driven phenomenon that badly misses the point of what causes gun violence. Then again, I tend to find myself at odds with whatever is "popular," "exciting" and "fashionable."

Click to expand...

It's not weird, I believe there are millions of people like you out there that are thinking if government can do this to the 2A what else can they do? I didn't own a gun until I was 50 years old, never thought about it one way or the other,I now own 2 and what is happening in New York right now is the reason I bought them. I wanted to get them before I couldn't anymore. I don't give a crap what the anti gunners say their ultimate goal is to ban guns.